I would say lots of things break down much faster than what they should. It does not help the capitalist class to make good items that last a long
time because in the long run it hampers sales. I can find motive in their decision making process, but it does not necessarily imply its true
either.

Capitalism is and has been the most efficient way to provide goods and services to the most at the least cost.

If you mean by destroying unions and encouraging illegals by the truckload, then YES it is very efficient. But I don't think you and the other
international capitalists want to discuss that.

American corporations are going overseas because the government, run by socialists, increases the cost of doing business through regulation and
taxation.

No they are liberals who love regulating and taxing the hell out of everything middle class. Rich and poor have always gotten a free ride so to
speak. It would have infinitely better to cut down on taxation rates(personal and corporate) and then apply tariffs like they did in the old days.
Then proceed to deregulate meaningless stuff. I would rather have quality over quantity approach.

And in the great soviet and maoist workers paradises, people died by the millions.

They were butchers? Or was it the capitalist class controlling the UN putting sanctions and embargoes on communist nations? Cuba could not even
export cigars and everyone knows this. I agree communism sucks but lets focus on the real reasons rather than propagada. The real reason was lack of
initiative from the workers other than going to jail if you overdid it in the lazy department.

Socialism is great if you like shortages and only having the choice of a single type of item. Capitalism and competition gives you the variety
of goods and services you have today.

You should say communism to distinct it from socialism. Yes and no though to your statement. Yes capitalism encourages diversity and competition BUT
only during its early stages of development, then monopolies form and quaility goes down as well as prices going up.

And illegals are encouraged by the socialists as well because they see that as an expanding voting block.
If by unions, you mean mob controlled puppets, I'd call that a good thing.
Read up on the starvation of the Ukraine due to forced industrailization. No "capitalist class" making sanctions. Only the US embargoes Cuba...if
the Cuban worker's paradise was so efficient and great, they could have gotten support from around the world.

Capitalism stil encourages innovation and competition. Monopolies rise and fall. Don't hear too much about the railroad monopolies or the whale oil
monopolies. Capitalism brought us the technological revolution and the industrial revolution and, hopefully, the interstellar revolution.

Originally posted by luciddream
lol another discussion where 50% do not know the difference between Socialism and Communism.

The propaganda spread by the American government in 1940s must be strong, it still echos in the heads of 2013.

Of course it is hard to covert a country to a totally different economic system... in order to do that, it need to be completely destroyed and brought
up again.

Many country has Socialism(democracy) in it, including, UK, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark...Canada... and even USA, tho many don't admit it
lol

edit on 5/21/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

Many countries HAD socialism although to be honest with you it was FAKE because the central banks were private rather than public. That means the
governments had to borrow and borrow so that the bondholders got paid their dividents and principle upon maturity.

Hence it WAS socialism within capitalism as I described earlier to someone else.

Today european nations are largely LIBERAL(controlled capitalism with welfare state) just like USA and Canada and other "developed nations" are.

Communism is a classless stateless utopia, and it never existed on any larger scales.

As described in the communist manifesto, it might as well be called athiest anarchy because that is what they alluded to indirectly. I consider
ex-USSR, PRC, Cuba, North Korea communist nations just like everyone else does.

Originally posted by CornShucker
When all your needs are guaranteed regardless of whether you produce anything, there is ZERO incentive to do anything but the
bare minimum.

There is a video you might like to watch.

LOVED IT!!!

I should have added in my post that the 13 employees in my crew were everyone else's "cast-offs". Rather than fire someone, they got moved out to
the Table Department. Everyone had been miserable under the guy I replaced. What I tried to do was emulate a supervisor I had worked under when I
was younger. He told me once that all supervisors fall into three categories:

#1. The guy that wants to be everybody's buddy. In the long run, these guys do a dis-service to both the company and their crew.

#2. The cut-throat who would step on his own mother's throat if he thought it would get him either a raise or a step up to the next rung in the
ladder.

OR:

#3. The guy that understands he's no different than the coach in a professional sport. If you don't give your team what they need to stay motivated
and productive, everyone will soon be out of a job.

I was extremely proud of my crew. I never, ever talked down to them or made them feel stupid for making a mistake. The smartest man in the
world will still make a mistake occasionally. The point is to understand what was wrong and avoid repeating the same mistake over and over. An
employee who is part of the problem solving process comes away from it not only better for the experience, but will share what they've learned with
others so that you don't have to endlessly deal with the same issue only with different workers.

I find it funny how you have to argue about it's existence, because admitting it exists can partly contribute to overturning one of the
lies at the heart of capitalism - that it's efficient and produces superior goods.

Not every company is going to get a lawsuit for it, it has become so ingrained into the modus operandi of capitalism. If you watch the doco you'll
find out about a case where other companies would gang up on the one trying to produce durable goods.
Ge Phillips etc. even made their own cartel called the Phoebus Cartel...

bulbs were regularly tested and fines were levied for bulbs that lasted more than 1000 hours

That's right, they fined them for making durable goods - it's bad for business !! The more you have to chuck stuff out - the more money they make.
They have a motivation for your product to break.

Fortunately for us if we really need them and are prepared to pay - there is sometimes a niche market for durable goods. The problem is they have come
under attack in the past and continue to be, and also they are only more durable compared to the standard, meaning they may not be durable at all -
they just aren't design to break as quick. The other bad thing is due to the dog-eat-dog competitive nature of capitalism, the companies which
choose durability over profit are often just eliminated from the competition. Also, durable niche markets don't exists for every product, they are
more often for things like outdoor recreational gear.

Are their any really rich people that believe in communism or socialism? I ask because if their are then there is no reason they couldn't implement a
virtual communist or socialist community under a corporation in a capitalist society.

Sure their are no corporations under communism , but don't get wrapped up in the terminology . What matters is not communism itself but the outcome
and purpose of communism , right.

The corporation can give you the legal means to implement a communist society. Everyone can turn their assets to the state (Corporation) and have it
managed by the gov't (board of directors). The board of directors can manage the assest and equally distribute among all the comrades (investors) .

In addition since the communist goal is not to make a profit but rather to ensure equality than the board doesn't have the burden of increasing their
bottom line year after year.

I know it sounds crazy but what could you do under a communist state that you couldn't do under a corporation?

Some of the negatives I see is that under a communist state you legally can't walk away but under a corporation you could file bankruptcy.

I suspect that it would be very difficult to find significant communist investors that would be willing to give their assets over to the state. Much
like how the Hollywood loving crowd didn't move to Venezuela and turned their assets over to Chavez in order to live in utopia when he was alive.

So my problems are, that in order for communism to work you have to give your rights away without an opportunity to walk away if things go sour.

In addition how do you volunteering implement communism and get those who currently have assets to turn them over to the gov't willing?

Would those who need help flock to communism or would the ones that have and can provide flock to communism?

My problem is with any system that requires forceful tactics in order to survive and get started. I don't see communism being started without
forcefully taking property and rights away from individuals. Those type of system always tend to end up in dictatorships.

Hence I suggest implementing a successful virtual corporate communist community where comrades can demonstrate the greatness of communism. If
successful then the heard will flock to your side. Until then people are going to be rightly skeptical.

Originally posted by interupt42
I know it sounds crazy but what could you do under a communist state that you couldn't do under a corporation?

Eat. (For the 22,000 children who die each day because of poverty)

We can talk about owning private jets, mansions and Ferrari collections once everybody on this planet has food, water and shelter.

When the inequality is so bad that you have children dying of starvation in a world that produces enough food to feed humanity 1.5 times over - then
it's time to do something about it. I would hate to have to take from the rich and give to the poor by force, but if it meant saving their lives then
I would consider it because TPTB are so greedy they just can't be reasoned with. A little bit of wealth inequality is OK, but things have gotten so
bad that it's causing tremendous problems in the world, half of the worlds population lives on less than 2$ per day.

I would also agree with taking the power and wealth from the so-called communist leaders, who are just more rich elite ruling under the disguise of
"communism" - those countries like Russia, China, etc. were all basically the opposite of communism, meaning the ruling class was in power as opposed
to the masses of working class people democratically running it.

And it is not just the rich and elites, it is the whole mind set that holds that model, of greed and acquisition, as the aspirationally model. Each
and everyone of us could do something to prevent the death by starvation and disease of children by simply taking responsibility for our own
consumption (and waste) and taking control of the power in our pocket.

Sadly, no one wants to hear that, they want to point the finger and blame others instead.

We could change the world, but first we have to change ourselves. There will always be suffering, that is a fact of existence, but it is
possible to reduce the scale of needless suffering.

I don't disagree with how Fd up the priorities are in this world, but the problem is and what history has shown is that when you start to give up your
rights and assets to the gov't it doesn't end up well for anyone. Especially if done be force. That typically leads to dictatorships.

Perhaps the answer is not capitalism ,socialism, or communism.

However, you didn't answer the question on what could you do under a communist state that you couldn't do under a corporation. Use the corporation to
implement your proof of concept on how well a socialist or communist state could work.

My fellow ATS members, if you would indulge me, I’m going to approach this philosophical discussion from a metaphysical point of view.

Personally, I don’t think we can hope to have any totally equal form of society until we understand the true nature of our reality. I believe each
of us must know what this life is about before we are willing to sacrifice our own material comfort for the good of others. And to this end, I believe
both religion and science are critical factors.

We all know that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam basically teaches us that we have only one life here on Earth and it is up to us to be “good” in
this life so that we can have a better afterlife. We also know that since the publishing of “Origin of the Species” by Charles Darwin in the
mid-1800’s, we have thought of ourselves as really nothing more than an evolved animal. You put those two philosophies together and it is no wonder
why capitalism (or survival of the fittest in this life) has been so successful.

But what if... What if both our religious philosophy and our scientific theories are but half-truths or entirely wrong? For example, what if it could
be scientifically proven that consciousness survives death and reincarnation was real? What if a convincing argument could be made that the reason we
incarnate is to learn all the joys and pains of this life so we develop compassion for our fellow souls who incarnate with us? What if we learned that
once we experience enough and have enough compassion, we need no longer incarnate in this dimension and we help guide souls who do? In other words,
what if we really knew that success in this life wasn’t about how much we can buy from each other, but success was really about by how much we
helped each other?

IF that were the case, do you think socialism might have a better chance of being a successful social system?
I do.

Of course not. That's a lie that has been told for thousands of years. We demand cooperation.
If you compete, invariably you will have winners AND loosers. If you cooperate, you'll ony have winners.

Competition is a naturally occurring process in all species.

Only if there is not enough of something to go around. And only for as long as necessary. In nature, for example, a lion kills only what he needs, no
more. If his belly if full, he will sleep piecefully amidst the animals he hunts when hungry. Now compare that to, say,
Gina Rinehart, the richest woman of Australia. Her personal wealth is roughly 23
billion Australian dollars. And still, her children have to sue her because she refuses to share some of it with them.

Sounds like all humans must become equal drones for this cockamamie deal to work.

No, most certainly not. People are individuals and should be respected as such. That's actually a core value of modern socialism: dignity.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.